I summarize by saying how anyone could say that a person who "has substantially, significantly, or materially violated the requirements" of this law should somehow or another not even receive so much as a tap on the wrist and should be allowed to go on doing in the future what that person has done in the past, is beyond my understanding. I am sorry this is not in the bill. I don't think the excuses of its opponents and the House conferees are adequate in the slightest, but I do know that the chairman and the ranking minority member sympathize with me on this and will support us as we continue on a crusade for honesty and straightforward dealing and using this money for the purposes for which it was intended.
T. Gorton: “I summarize by saying how anyone could say that a person who "has substantially, significantly, or materially violated…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing accountability measures in housing legislation.
Share
More from T. Gorton
I thank my friend, and emphasize that we did not act again this year just to ratify the actions of the Department of Interior. The Committee to reemphasize its original intent: That Interior study the NRC report carefully, and that any…
In response to my colleague, the senior Senator from Nevada, let me say that your understanding of the issues affecting Lake Tahoe is correct. Your concerns seem reasonable, as does your interpretation of the language in question.
As I have said before, I greatly admire the Senator from Maine's tenacity and her unfailing devotion to the best interests of her State.
I would agree that maintaining dual suppliers of high performance, environmentally acceptable fire retardants is critical to the mission of the Service.





